1. Give aid to Afghanistan or don't give aid to Afghanistan

2. If you give aid to Afghanistan, you end up helping Islamic extremists

3. If you don't give aid to Afghanistan, millions of Afghans will die a slow, painful death

Ergo,

4. You end up helping Islamic extremists or millions of Afghans will die a slow, painful death (dilemma)

Protagoras to the rescue, if you know what I mean.

Famines are usually caused by politics. Failed or non-existent governments, incompetent or corrupt politicians, liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels running loose. It's surprising that there are not more famines than there are.

There have been in the past, and there will be more future famines caused by climate change's bad weather, locust plagues, crop diseases, and drought, even where government has been effective.

One famine presents pretty much the same dilemma as any other. Which side in the Tigray war should we feed--those starved by Ethiopian forces or the rebel Tigray forces? Take your pick. Flip a coin?

Who knows who is next? Ally? Foe?

The world must either prepare to feed many more famine stricken people, or decide to write off millions of people as beyond help. Feeding won't bring about quality government or honest politicians, or rid a nation of greedy parasites. It may not help people living in a failed state in the long run, unless we keep feeding them in the long run.

In the real world, sad to say, people do get written off. The population write off comes in the forms of aid pledges not being paid; of relatively well off nations making small pledges (or no pledges); of arms-exporting states continuing to feed weapons into collapsing, destitute state; etc., etc., etc. No Prime Minister or President is going to hold a press conference and announce that the 20,000,000 people in Pretzelstan should just drop dead and get it over with. But, if Pretzelstan isn't important to the the rest of the world (busy dealing with its own serious problems), then they will starve.

I am remind of a similar instance in history where millions of Indian people died off (in the Bengal famine of 1943) because the U.K. (specifically Churchill) didn't want to create any humanitarian aid there. This wasn't decided on religious grounds, i.e. they weren't starving because of religious authorities, but it was anthropogenic -- like the given.

Even though the United States is strict on the dictum of "We will not comprise with terrorists" there will probably be other wealthy countries that do provide aid. If no one does all parties involved and not involved can be cast in the light of history as responsible, but I think that most of us will see it, judge it, as the result of extremist theocracy.

4. You end up helping Islamic extremists or millions of Afghans will die a slow, painful death (dilemma) — TheMadFool

Definition of dilemma
1a: a usually undesirable or unpleasant choice
faces this dilemma: raise interest rates and slow the economy or lower them and risk serious inflation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilemma

This goes to the heart of the matter. Why is this an unpleasant choice? Helping any government, even the government that authorized the carnage in Afghanistan is a moral dilemma? What about helping Saudi Arabia by selling them weapons?

I don't think God has dilemmas:

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor i and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Matthew 5:43-45.

Is the practice that Jesus commended the best? Buddhism also promotes a similar view, I am not sure of the other religions.

In practical terms, making the Taliban aid dependent is a way of getting a hold of them?

Since my first post there have been many millions pledged to help the people of Afghanistan.

The world must either prepare to feed many more famine stricken people, or decide to write off millions of people as beyond help. Feeding won't bring about quality government or honest politicians, or rid a nation of greedy parasites. It may not help people living in a failed state in the long run, unless we keep feeding them in the long run. — Bitter Crank

The world cannot agree on anything, which is a good thing, since some aid will always trickle through.

I wonder if the deeper question is the lack of moral education, or for that matter, the depth of philosophical sophistication among politicians. Can the case be made for educating voters to choose educated leaders or more subtly, to insist that the leaders they choose are capable of reasoning correctly? To put it crudely, is it better to be ruled by Genghis Khan or Emperor Nero than an Aristotelian ideal? How do countries make sure this happens?

Thousands of years of civilization has not really civilized people?

Yes I have heard of this incident. Underlying all this is the thought of men, and the thoughts of men are ruled by their philosophy. The failure of philosophy is to blame?

I suggest that we have to stop saying "Alexander the Great" and instead call him "Alexander the Killer of Men". That is the mindset change that is needed?

To put it crudely, is it better to be ruled by Genghis Khan or Emperor Nero than an Aristotelian ideal? — FreeEmotion

Martin Luther said it was better to be ruled by a smart pagan than a dumb Christian.

the depth of philosophical sophistication among politicians. — FreeEmotion

Who, pray tell, expects politicians to have philosophical sophistication (whatever that might be)?

Politicians serve the state and the interests of the state. That pretty much explains the decisions that get made.

Questions remain, however, as to why not go all the way and simply prevent Afghans from starving to death if possible, regardless of the actions or inaction of the Taliban. Surely this is a moral and philosophical issue: for example, why not release the assets held by the Central Bank of Afghanistan?

I would think that all moral philosophies support the idea of protecting innocent lives at all costs, unless of course, there are things more important than human lives. — FreeEmotion

In my view there is no dilemma.

The US made a peace deal with the Taliban. The Taliban held their side of the agreement (not to attack US forces...but of course attack the Afghan government, because there was nothing against that in the agreement!).

Why should the US after signing a peace deal still be hostile? The fact is that the US in it's hypocrisy doesn't want to admit that they threw in the towel and the fight is already over.

I don't think one person can make everyone humanistic (that is having a fundamental notion of existence as a human), but it never hurts to spread the simplistic ideology. Its a matter of ontology. Accepting that we are ALL human beings at a fundamental level and using it to booster our notions of ourselves, in my ideal is the primary way to reduce such ideological stresses and conflicts.

Like I said, its not something one person can do on their own. "Converting people to humanism" is a life-goal of mine. I doubt that is a viable solution, for the extremist don't give up the religious beliefs they so heartily engender. I know people who wouldn't give up their faith no matter the evidence (or absence thereof) presented to them. Some would rather die than deny their faith. People are unreasonable, and so we have kings against kings, pawns against pawns, on the board.

Understanding and living by principles in economics instead of basing your whole ideology on irrational and unrealistic doctrine is the best way to go. It comes along the way of being humanistic and scientifically minded. Being able to have government leaders that represent the people and having means of being economically reasonable is a facet of any thriving country.

"Is it a change in philosophy that is needed?"

Philosophy is key in opening minds to the realities of human nature and everything that follows from it.

"Alexander the killer?"

I am not sure what you mean here. Perhaps you mean that we should not praise those who are in fact ruthless murderers (have raging psychopathy). I wouldn't excuse how ATG handled his ambitions, but if he were more refined, more civilized, he wouldn't have needed to be a mass murder to change the world. It just so happens that those that have done that, are sometimes seen as MAJOR victors in history. There are other ways to achieve victory.

I think it might be a necessary distraction from Libya. Power vacuums will be filled quickly not necessarily well (unless luck is involved).

I see no real 'dilemma'. Many wrong doings have happened and will continue to happen even with so-called 'moral arguments' behind them.

Practical action is needed rather than philosophical ponderings. I'm not inclined to risk my life to try to 'help' though if I'm brutally honest. A monetary donation to aid organisations? If you think it will help someone somewhere a little go ahead and donate.

Other than that I don't have much more to say.

Eating one's cake and having it too. From The Paradox Of The One.

I am not sure that the hesitancy to help Afghans is based on anything resembling carefully reasoned arguments regarding morality. That's the rub. It might be a result of either fear, lack of knowledge or political affiliation (for example some channels describe aid as 'helping terrorists'.) There has been much progress this far, and it looks like the request for aid will be met, thanks largely to the US and EU. It remains to be seen, however if a humanitarian catastrophe can be avoided altogether.

How does one ensure that a country produces a good government to rule itself? Many say Democracy is the answer: but is it? Is it simply following the UN Charter: that is, all countries follow the UN Charter in dealing with each other and with their people?

Being able to have government leaders that represent the people and having means of being economically reasonable is a facet of any thriving country. — Josh Alfred

Yes, but how?

I see no real 'dilemma'. Many wrong doings have happened and will continue to happen even with so-called 'moral arguments' behind them.

Practical action is needed rather than philosophical ponderings. I'm not inclined to risk my life to try to 'help' though if I'm brutally honest. A monetary donation to aid organisations? If you think it will help someone somewhere a little go ahead and donate. — I like sushi

Donations will help, especially if the organization is monitored by the donors . Yes many wrongs will continue to happen. However, 2000 years since Plato and Aristotle, civilization seems not to have progressed away from war: be it Afghanistan, Libya, or anywhere else. The great religious leaders have all come : there are fewer wars going on, but there are wars nevertheless. Is this some sort of a worldwide rite of passage for the human race? Initiations can be quite brutal. Are we being initiated into some larger cosmic awakening through death and war?

This is one view, not necessarily one I subscribe to.

Medical technology is failing and the medical care that we are receiving is often not healing us, but making us sicker. Many people are seeking alternative therapies such as seeing chiropractors, massage therapists, acupuncture specialists, energy healers, and new age practitioners to treat their health conditions.

This is a time of questioning, exploring knowledge, increasing our spiritual awareness and focusing on technological advances to help humanity survive in these trying times. Some believe that we are in the “Age of Aquarius” and there are many different opinions as to when this age actually starts.

It is evident that we are in an intense energetic time and we are all feeling it, but what is it that we are feeling? — Liveabout

I guess we are all Stayin Alive though cities were breaking and everybody was shaken. Is this a shaking up process for the collective psyche of humanity?

The Bee Gees said it well:

"Feel the city breakin'
And everybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive."

Maybe something is going down?

"Listen to the ground:
There is movement all around.
There is something goin' down
And I can feel it."

(The Bee Gees, "Stayin Alive" and "Night Fever")

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beegees/

However, 2000 years since Plato and Aristotle, civilization seems not to have progressed away from war — FreeEmotion

The facts beg to differ.

It is interesting to consider the number of lives lost through war.

WW1 : 37,569,768

https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/politics/casualties-world-war-i-country-politics-world-war-i

WW2: 75,000,000

Some 75 million people died in World War II, including about 20 million military personnel and 40 million civilians, many of whom died because of deliberate genocide, massacres, mass-bombings, disease, and starvation.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/


The population of the earth in 2000 BC is estimated between 27 and 72 million.

It is a good thing there are more people around now.

Money and other resources are fungible. If foreigners feed, clothe or educate Afghani civilians the national government is free to divert resources away from those areas towards other areas, such as the army.

The civil war Nigerian forces fought against separatists in Biafra was sustained by donations made by international aid groups. The separatists would have surrendered or been defeated much faster without it.